2 comments

1. So here’s a question that is new to me. What is the Reformed understanding of ‘Theosis’? A friend messaged me asking my opinion of it, and I have found very little on what the historic church has held on that term. I told them I was cautious, as it seems to conflate terms and almost borders on semi-pelagianism, but that I didn’t know enough about it to have a stance yet. Thoughts? Thank you so much for you work and ministry. It has helped disciple me as a supplement to my consistory’s shepherding.

   Blessings from the PNW!
   Josh Jimenez

   • Hi Josh,

     The Reformed theologians traditionally did not speak of θέωσις (theosis) as such. The question is what theosis means. As I indicated in the episode, it seems to me that, in the Greek traditions, the human problem is not considered legal or moral but ontological. Thomas put it this way too. Thus, it would seem that salvation (theosis) is ontological but the Greeks deny that this is what they are saying by theosis. Bp Timothy/Kalistos Ware, says in The Orthodox Church that theosis is the Greek way of saying progressive sanctification. Ware distinguishes between God’s essence and his energies, or his working. Mike Horton has used these categories.

     Insofar as that is true, and the testimony of the Greek theologians seems fairly consistent on this point, their doctrine of really salvation through progressive sanctification. In that way it is not fundamentally different from Rome’s.

     Evangelicals, however, have had a tendency to want more than sanctification. The mystical influences on Modern evangelicals seems to drive them toward a doctrine of divinization or deification. Hodge, in his Systematics, addresses Schwenkfeld (the Anabaptist, which might explain the post-1800 turn of Modern evangelicals toward deification) as an example of a Western writer who seeks identity with God. He also addressed it under his discussion of pantheism.

     The only 16th or 17th-century writer I was able to find through a search of an extensive database of Reformed & Lutheran texts who wrote about theosis was Abraham Calov and that was under Christology.

     Heiser seems to be moving even beyond the Greeks (hence the importance of the Anabaptist connection).

     So, the Reformed certainly teach a doctrine progressive sanctification by grace alone, through faith alone. The Apostle Peter does speak of us being “partakers in the divine nature,” but he is not speaking ontologically, or about being. He is speaking about sanctification, the gradual and gracious conformity by the Spirit, through the Word and sacraments, of the believer into the image of Christ.

     • As It Was In The Days Of Noah (26): 2 Peter 1:3–11 (part 1)
     • As It Was In The Days Of Noah (27): 2 Peter 1:3–11 (part 2)
     • As It Was In The Days Of Noah (27): 2 Peter 1:3–11 (part 3)
     • As It Was In The Days Of Noah (28): 2 Peter 1:3–11 (part 4)

     There are other examples of something like an ontological approach to theosis that has influenced evangelicals. Hodge called Edwards a pantheist. Here’s an intro to some of the issues with Edwards:

     Why Caution About Jonathan Edwards Is In Order

     See also:

     On The QIRE There’s No Place to Stop

     Sanctification Is A Work Of God’s Grace: Resources On Sanctification

Comments are closed.